By Juliet Grable
Brian Geier and his wife, Elizabeth Tobey, are farmers in Harrison County, Indiana, where they grow corn, soybeans, hay, and flowers on their 55 acres. Last year, they added sheep to the operation.
Like many producers, the couple has taken advantage of federal conservation programs available through Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS. In 2024, they used grant funding to remove invasive trees and brush that had moved into the forested part of their acreage. This year, thanks to a second contract, they were planning to expand their rotational grazing operation with new fencing and water lines.
Typically, landowners spend their own money and are reimbursed once a year. Geier is using the advanced payment option, which is available to beginning farmers.
“You can spend a little bit of the money, turn in receipts, and then get repaid for it,” he explains. But in mid-February, Geier learned that the second grant, which is funded through the Inflation Reduction Act, is frozen indefinitely.
He’s not alone. Thousands of NRCS conservation contracts across the country have been frozen; some have been terminated altogether.
The freeze is tied to two executive orders signed by President Trump in January. One halted the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—signature legislation passed during the Biden administration. The other terminated any federal program or mandate tied to “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.”
Geier says their NRCS agent doesn’t know when or if the money will be available. He doesn’t think he’ll be reimbursed for any work he does now, but halting the fencing project is not an option. “We need to build a fence before the sheep have lambs nine weeks from now,” says Geier. “You can't pause nature.”
All around the country, farmers and organizations are scrambling to respond to the freeze. Many have tabled projects and cut back on staffing. Some, including Geier, are fighting back, lobbying their lawmakers and taking to social media with their stories.
Every day, the ripple effects compound.
The role of federal conservation programs
Conservation programs help farmers implement practices that are better for the land, water, and wildlife. These programs fund a huge array of practices, from rotational grazing and “high tunnels” that extend the growing season to cover crops, hedgerows, and the creation of pollinator habitat. Some of the incentives help private landowners steward their forested land.
In 2022, the Biden administration distributed an additional $1.9 billion to several conservation programs through the Inflation Reduction Act. Jesse Womack, policy specialist at National Sustainable Farming Coalition (NSAC), argues this boost was a necessary step.
“We are nowhere near helping every farmer in America that wants to do voluntary conservation at this time,” says Womack, adding that even with the boost in funding from the IRA, only 25 percent of farmers have been able to take advantage of conservation programs.
Geier says that, according to data he obtained through the USDA portal, between $24 million and $26 million was paid out to farmers in Indiana last year, just in grants from a single program funded through the IRA.
The freeze is not just affecting farmers’ access to funds, says Womack. “There's also the freeze of all conservation technical assistance funding made available to NRCS through the IRA.” Some of this went to hiring more NRCS agents, who are the on-the-ground contacts for farmers, ranchers, and landowners; some also funded third-party experts who help farmers write conservation plans and design practices.
These losses compound the effect of the federal purge in federal workers that’s been taking place across agencies.
“The IRA pause is functionally a second firing wave that will reduce the amount of experts available to farmers on the ground across the country,” says Womack.
According to Agri-Pulse, a news outlet focused on ag and food policy, about 1,200 NRCS staff had been laid off as of February 14. More recently, 5,700 probationary employees were temporarily rehired on orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
DEI in the crosshairs
Mike Nolan, president of Mancos Conservation District in Colorado, received an unwelcome Valentine’s Day surprise when he learned a $630,000 grant contract had been terminated.
The grant was awarded to his district through the NRCS Equity and Conservation Outreach program, which was designed to reach underserved producers. These include new farmers and ranchers, veterans, and those with limited resources or who are socially disadvantaged. In a letter, NRCS stated the award “no longer effectuates agency priorities regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and activities.”
The district planned to use the grant to develop and distribute a rural living handbook and to introduce high school students to natural resource careers. They were also planning creative ways to engage landowners, from workshops and movie screenings to a water education festival.
Mancos Conservation District is located in Montezuma County in southwest Colorado. The region is seeing an influx of new residents who may not be familiar with the special challenges of the high desert ecosystem, says Nolan.
“A big chunk of our county is at 7,000 to 8,000 feet; the soils are really fragile, and water is really limited,” he says. “Education and outreach about conservation practices, even to normal landowners, not just farmers and ranchers, is really important.”
Nolan understands that administration changes often bring with them a shift in priorities. “We knew that,” he says. “What we weren’t prepared for is something we’ve been spending down for 10 months being pulled out from under us. You’re not saving money at that point; you’re just causing chaos.”
Mike Lavender, policy director at NSAC, says that no matter what, the sudden freezing and termination of contracts has eroded trust in the US Department of Agriculture and NRCS. “If the message to farmers and stakeholders at large is those contracts don't mean anything—we can just change them at will—what does that do for the government’s, in this case, the USDA’s, long-term relationship with stakeholders?”
Click here to see more...